Is Coup de Grace an evil act?

[RigaMortus]

In many cases, the most efficient, most expedient means of dealing with the situation is to kill them.

Thank you for proving my point. Please see my other posts above about Evil and how they like to hurt, oppress and kill others and show no compassion when doing so simply because it is convienient to do so.

If you don't acknowledge that, you are being narrow.

I do acknowledge it, and it isn't narrow. It is a very wide bridge that leads to Evil.

We aren't talking about killing for "convience sake",

Aren't we? Sure looks that way from here. There are other options available, but since the most convienient one is to kill them, it is the one they chose.

we are talking about executing entities known to evil or waging a war on your enemies. If you don't know they are evil (commiting crimes) or you are not at war with them, then the situation is different.

I do see your point. I have no problem at all with killing in combat, when need warrants it. I just fail to see the need to go overkill and CdG an enemy who is unconcious and no longer posing a threat.

Let me give a different scenario. Let's say the party was attacked by a Fiendish Troll (fiendish to make sure it is evil, and a troll because it will regenerate if you just leave it there). Well, if this was combat, then I'd say you can probably get away with killing it without fear of the alignment book being thrown at you. Assuming you know Trolls regenerate, this guy will keep coming. You've tried to reason with it, you've demanded it's surrender, it's killed many people before your eyes. Toss acid/fire on it, and be done with it. At least (a) you KNOW without a doubt it is evil because you saw it kill people and (b) there is no other recourse. You tried to talk to it, make it listen to reason, demanded it's surrender, and to no avail. The only other way to deal with it is death. My other arguements were to imprision the creatures you were dealing with, lure them away from the civilization, get higher level help (this is still viable assuming there are higher level NPCs around to help you) and bind it. No point in imprisioning it, it can't be reasoned with, you tried already. It is probably strong enough to break out of any bonds you put on it. So admittedly, you have no other recourse. It is the middle of battle, slay the beast and burn it.

Now please note that I am not chaning my stance on the issue, I am actually encouraging my point. Which I stated previously, if there is no other recourse, then death may be warranted. We have all the facts here. Let's go back to the sleeping fire giant example (but using the Fiendish Troll).

If this was a sleeping fiendish troll, then what? Well, you must consider the factors. In scenario 1 you were in combat, defending yourself and others. Here you are not in immediate danger. In scenario 1 you witnessed it kill innocent people. Did you witness this before and follow it here, or did you just "happen" upon it? Do you know it is Fiendish? Maybe you aren't aware. Can it be reasoned with? In scenario 1 it couldn't be, but you don't know with this one.

So to outright CdG or otherwise try to kill it without knowing more facts, your attack is unproked and would be considered an Evil action. Even if you KNEW it was Fiendish and Evil, you may not know why. Was it a slave owner on an outter plane, and he came here to look for more slaves? Or did he come here to live alone, in peace, hidden away from other Evil beings on the outter planes, trying to change his ways?

Killing can be justified.

Yes, it can... a lot of the time even. A CdG? Hardly ever (not never, just hardly ever).

 

[RigaMortus]

You're fighting the most powerful, evilest sorceror in the world. You know you have absolutely no chance -- you're a relatively inexperienced wizard who just cast his first fireball yesterday, and this sorceror has been slamming your town with meteor swarms left and right for the past month. You know he could kill you with one Power Word if he had the opportunity.

But you saw him strolling down the road, and with an awful lot of luck, got off a successful Hold spell on him. Now he's standing there, totally helpless for a few short seconds, and you have a knife at your belt. If he comes out of the Hold, he'll kill you and everyone in your town. You can end this war right here with one swift coup de grace.

--Sam L-L

But you saw him strolling down the road, and with an awful lot of luck, got off a successful Hold spell on him.

Ok, so you are telling me you provoked an attack with this well known, high level, Evil sorcerer? Who is the bad guy here again? Seriously, the alignment "Evil" is not a death sentence in and of itself. Just because someone/thing is evil doesn't mean it deserves to die. At least not right then and there.

But you did mention he threw some nasty spells at the town which probably killed people. To that, my next question would be, does your character have a death sentence? He knows relatively how high level this evil guy is and he goes ahead and provokes an attack with him anyway? Was the only plan available to him to attack him with a Hold spell? What motivated him to do this alone? Did he crave prestige out of killing the evil wizard? Did he want to loot his magic items when he died? Did he want REVENGE (there is a nice "Good" word, isn't it?) for killing the innocents of his town? These seem like evil qualities already so no matter what his next course of action is, does it really matter?

Why did he cast Hold on this guy? What was his motivations for doing so? And please don't just say, "because he was evil" or "because he deserved to die". Delve a little deeper then that. Why did he deserve to die (I know I already know) and why did this wizard think he should be the one to deliver this punishement and that he could do it alone? I need a motivating factor here, because CdGing this guy is the least of your alignment worries.

Just out of curiousity, this Wizard couldn't say, get help from higher levels? Avoid him all together and vow one day to get stronger until he could adequately deal with him? Trick him into being his apprentice so that he could (a) keep a watch on him and (b) perhaps foil any further attempts at killing the villagers ("No your evilness, I put the correct components in your spell pouch for Meteor Swarm. I don't know what happened." Hehe).

Just so you can get some satisfactory here. What's done is done. For whatever reason you give me (and I hope you do answer some of my questions above) the Hold Person spell stuck and he has to make a split decision. Kill this evil guy, or wait until the Hold spell wears off and he kills me and the rest of the town?

Ideas

A) "You see my power to hold you with but a few words. I am far greater than you in both power and knowledge. I could kill you with but a blink of the eye. Leave these townsfolk alone, or our next meeting will be fatal for you." Bluff check...

B) "I'm REALLY sorry, I mistargetted." Bluff check... (ok, that was just a funny one to throw in there)

C) Knock him out, and deliver him to the authorities where they can rightfully decide what to do with him. I do believe you can deliver a CdG subdually.

D) Fulfill your evil plans by CdGing him, builing a name for yourself as the Evil Wizard Slayer, Keeping his magic items so you are well above your intended wealth level, then continue to provoke attacks with higher levels until you finally lose and die.

 

[Hypersmurf]

C) Knock him out, and deliver him to the authorities where they can rightfully decide what to do with him. I do believe you can deliver a CdG subdually.

All the damage you deal is subdual, but he can still die by failing his Fort Save.

-Hyp.

 

[niteshade6]

"Now look at your character sheet, and read out the label beside the bit where you write "I'm a fire giant". "

Well I assume you mean to point out that character species is written under the race column in a character sheet. While this is true, they just use that as a convenient label rather then the real world definition of race. So it doesn't really change anything.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well I assume you mean to point out that character species is written under the race column in a character sheet. While this is true, they just use that as a convenient label rather then the real world definition of race. So it doesn't really change anything.

Real world definition is irrelevant. It's not just a convenient label - it's the word used both in and out of character to refer to different sentient creatures.

"Something you need to know about the goblinoid races, boy," the old ranger lectured. "They got a real weakness for maple syrup."

or

"It's not just him," the elf snarled. "I hate the whole dwarven race!"

It's perfectly valid to refer to the elf's attitude as a racist one, because to the people of that world, what you call "species" is what they think of as "race".

-Hyp.

 

[LokiDR]

Using this logic: A known Thief is walking down the street. The authorities spot him and give chase, telling him to stop. He runs, because he doesn't want to go to jail. The authorities catch up to him and tackle (ie grapple) him to keep him from escaping. Since the authorities "attacked" the Thief, he is now within his rights to defend himself, knock out the authorities and then CdG them?

Do you need a good definition of "unprovoked"? This wasn't it.

Owning slaves is a grevous crime. Should all slave owners be killed? Is there no other "justice" for them other than death? This also assumes you KNOW that they committed the crime, that they willfully did it (wasn't under a Geas), and a whole bunch of other factors.

Yes, you do need to know they willfully commited evil, which is why vigilantism is such a bad idea.

Killing a person who commits evil is not an evil act. There doesn't need to be any other punishment, so long as it fits the crime. In ancient times, your hand might be cut off if you were caught stealing. Was there any other way? Perhaps, but that doesn't make that punishment evil.

IMC there is no such thing as an "always evil" race. That is the great thing about originallity and creativity. You can shy away from the oh-so-strict rules in the Core Books and happen upon that CG demon or LE celestial.

Are we talking about D&D or your campaign? Some things in fantasy are pure evil.

*sigh* sure it is. They were no longer a threat, that is just overkill. You had no reason to do it other than to end it's life. A Good course of action would be to bind their wounds and tie them up. An Evil course would be to do just as you described.

You don't understand, do you? If you kill them to prevent them being a threat again in the battle, it is not evil, it is pure utility. Only wanton killing can be called evil. If the other side isn't healing the downed allies, then it is wanton killing.

Wow, found something we agree on. Of course the same goes with this as well. You may not KNOW if they are innocent. I think it's better to be safe and give the benefit of the doubt, rather than to act rashly and often evily.

If you see them commit evil worth being killed over, killing them is not evil. If you know they are commpeled, or susspect they might be, it would be wrong to kill them. If they are common bandits, it is not the same thing. I agree that if you off every person who attacks you, you will run evil eventually.

Yup, and those actions are all just as "evil".

Please take a look again at the PHB descriptions of Good and Evil, and tell me which alignment is the one that promotes killing, and which one shys away from it because they respect life.

Evil is disrespect for life. You can kill when you have some respect for life. I never claimed killing was good. Only that it could very easily be a non-evil act. Please pay attention to that.

 

[RigaMortus]

Interesting. And are those 20th-level NPCs hanging out at the local tavern, just waiting for the PCs to come up to them and give them a quest? You can assume they are, but IMC, most leveled NPCs are engaged in their own personal quests and adventures, and are difficult to locate. In the time it takes to track down a high-level NPC who's willing and able to confront the giants, the giants can wreak all sorts of havoc. This plan fails on the "sound, likely to work" front.

They may very well be at the local tavern, or maybe governing the town, or at the keep which boarders the realm. I'd say if a 20th level NPC was asked by a level 3 to help them deal with fire giants, they'd try to help them, unless they don't care. If your DM doesn't want it to work, then there is nothing you can do about it, is there? After all, he is the one which determines where high level NPCs are, if there are any at all.

Sure, assume there's a local populace. And what's the local populace going to do -- get ready to give tribute to the giants? Challenge them to a game of dominoes, winner takes all? Or do you think they're going to prepare by figuring out a way to kill the giants?

Seriously, can't you figure this stuff out on your own w/o coming up with something obviously dumb? Challenge them to dominos? I would think the local populace would find a place to hide. Take what they need to survive and either hide in the "hidden" storm cellars or become refugees in another town until the fire giants pass. Remember The Two Towers (I know you at least saw this movie, if not read the book. Who on these boards hasn't seen/read it? That was rhetorical)? Theoden feared an evasion, so what did he do? They left the town. Of course, they also went to Helms Deep to fight it out. If such a place is not available, then simply fleeing to other safe areas is a good idea.

As one of the "Heroes" I would suggest this to them if they did not think of it on their own. I would also think the town would be grateful that they had us watching over the fire giant threat and warning them about it. The town can be rebuilt, lives can't. Unless you want to pay for some Raise Dead spells...

You other idea about a tribute is also plausible, but more risky. They may not accept and attack anyway. They might accept and attack anyway for that matter. Depends if you want to take the risk.

Best case scenario, the villagers kill the giants, failing my "nonlethal" criterion. Worst case, the villagers get massacred by the giants because they are, after all, villagers, who had hoped that the adventurers would protect them from the menace.

If you want to use a dumb plan (I think fighting them head on is dumb for the villagers to do... brave, but dumb... there is always that fine line, isn't there?) then you get what is coming to you.

Interesting. What sort of diversion are you imagining that would stand a very good chance of leading the giants away permanently from any populace that they might pillage? Leading them into somebody else's village is hardly a Good solution, and leading them astray for a week doesn't exactly solve the problem. And if you lead them into a trap (e.g., to the doorstep of a cranky dragon), you run right up against the "nonlethal" criterion.

First off, you don't have to lead them away permanently. Just long enough to come up with something better. Being one of the heroes my main goal would to be to lead them away from the population first. And here we go once again with our assumptions. Let's assume the heroes know the layout of the land (since no one specificed) and know where each village, druid circle, etc. is. and can navigate away from them. They have invisibility and pass without trace and who knows what other spells (can I assume what spells they have?). First, take off that Ring of Silence. Invisibly they could yell or whatever at them, and when they go to investigate, lead them astray. If you have two people invisible, you can even split them up.

Another idea would be to give them a warning while you were invisible and pass without trace was on. Tell them a large army is coming and if they value their lives, they would do best to leave asap and not harm anyone. Bluff check...

And what, pray tell, might a fire giant get from a 3rd-level party through negotiation that she couldn't equally gain through force?

You mean besides material goods? How about knowledge (or at least, "fake" knowledge)? "I know where this really nice... is and I can show you but..." And so on...

Were I the DM, I'd certainly have the giants listen to offers of parlay -- but if that 3rd-level party was just blowing smoke up the giants' massive butts, the giants would eat them like french fries.

How kind of you As for blowing smoke up their butts, that is where Bluff comes in. Remember, I said they should be confident in their negotiaion tactics (you can read that as, "has a really high Diplomacy or Bluff")

You might promise them great treasure, in which case the giants will probably tote the PCs along as surety. You might promise them tribute, in which case the giants are almost certain to get greedy and ask for more and more. You might promise them all your own magic items, in which case the giants will eat you and take the magic items for themselves.

Well, it would delay them at the least, until you can come up with something better. Remember, these are quick-thinking ideas I came up with. The PCs had more time to think of other viable solutions that I hadn't mentioned, given that they were tracking them and that the giants were asleep and all. I didn't say ALL my ideas would work, or that they were even good This is mostly a case of DM vs. Player anyway. If they DM wants them to succeed, he will. If he wants them pounded into the dirt because of the (in his mind) stupid idea of negotation, then he will.

Or you might threaten them in your parley, which will have one of several possible outcomes -- 1) The giants are fooled into thinking you're way tough, and leave, never to bother innocent people again (fantastically unlikely); 2) The giants fight and die (fantastically unlikely, and failing the "nonlethal" criterion); 3) The giants fight, and you die (highly likely, and failing the "effective" criterion).

A very possible consequence. Again, it depends on how good your Diplomacy and Bluff is, and whether or not your DM things you idea is good enough and if he wants you to succeed or not.

Oh, honey, you are SO not in a position to play the "You started it!" card. Don't even go there.

First off, I ain't your honey, so don't get fruity with me. I don't swing that way boy. Secondly, I didn't say "You started it" all I said was, I was RETURNING the pompus atttiude you showed me. If you want to take something innocent I posted, twist it around to try and make me look like I am insulting you or others, then expect this type of attitude back. If on the other hand you want to try and have a civil conversation, I am all for it. And if you honestly think I said something derogatory, bring it up to me in a mature manner. Saying things like, "You know you were being insulting... blah, blah, blah." will not score points with me. As I said, you don't KNOW how I meant it. You may think you do, but you don't. Let's just try to keep this civil (and let me see if I can finish the rest of your replies in a civil manner as well).

Your 4 ideas hardly suffice, and if your DM lets you get away with tricks like this, why, you play a different style from what I play. I can certainly see the pleasure in playing in a world in which such child-storybook tricks work, but that's not the style we play.

No, we play in a world in which evil creatures engage in evil.

The consequences of not stopping a band of marauding giants will be orphaned children. Peasants will watch their house burn down with grandmother trapped inside -- perhaps her son will rush in to save her, dying in the inferno as well. A Villager will sob as she describes watching the giant tear her betrothed in half and eat him in two bites. Maimed and broken peasants rallied by the PCs to fight the giants will now turn away, refusing to speak to those who, in their eyes, betrayed them for the sake of their honor.

And PCs who decided to lead the giants on a whimsical wild-goose chase the first time around -- who decided to see if St. Agnes the Almighty was available for giantkilling -- who decided to rally the villagers into a ragtag and hopelessly outmatched army -- will decide what they want to do before the giants reach the next village.

Daniel

I see. So you prefer a more predictable game, then a random one. You know, the same exact thing you described there COULD (and sometimes does) occur in our games. But that isn't the only way it COULD play out.

The invisible Rogues crept up on the fire giants, lay their swords at their throats, and were ready to plunge it deep into their necks. But one of the Rogues felt a hint of compassion. He could not kill this living creature while it lay sleeping in a peaceful slumber. The Rogue hesitated for too long, the giant was now awake.

Fire Giant: Evil Humans, kill them! They killed Fargash!

Rogue: Hold it there pal, we didn't kill anyone. What are you talking about.

Fire Giants: You insignificant scum, you realize I could crush you right now? I should after what you did to my brother.

Rogue: Please, we do not want any trouble. Our lives are at your mercy. Tell us of your brother, perhaps we can help?

Fire Giants: You humans killed him. We were minding our own business, collecting slaves, then Jack-the-Giant-Killer attacked us and killed Fargash, my brother. For no good reason! We fled, and vowed vengence.

Rogue: And this is why you attack our villages? We saw you.

Fire Giant: Yes, for Fargash's honor.

Rogue: It seems there has been a horrid mistake here. This giant-killer attacked you without provocation?

Fire Giant: Yeah, we was just collecting slaves and...

Well I'm not gonna write this out any further, so I'll just tell ya the point. The point is, there CAN be two (or more) sides to the story and each one can be just as viable and not necessarily "fairy-tale-ish". The end result I was building up to was, that these giants could be converted to the side of Good, of course it could take a long time. First you party shows them the error of their ways, as well as show how the giant-killer was wrong. Then each side tries to make reperations. Then eventually peace talks begin.

Had you been rash and killed them, you would have never made such valuable allies, the townsfolk would have never made such valuable protectors and traders.

Another result could have been that the giants just wanted to go home. They were stuck in the middle of the frozen waste and they only attacked because Humans attacked them first. They are evil because they support slavery. But killing these two won't change that since it is going on back home. So there is no need to kill them.

The point is, you never know. To assume one thing because it is "usually" that way or because it is more "convienient" to do so, lies quickly to the path of Evil. My example isn't any less valid than yours. Less common? Yes, but not less valid nor impossible.

 

[RigaMortus]

Do you need a good definition of "unprovoked"? This wasn't it.

Provoked = To bring about deliberately; induce.

Unprovoked = Not provoked or prompted.

Again... Using this logic: A known Thief is walking down the street. The authorities spot him and give chase, telling him to stop. He runs, because he doesn't want to go to jail. The authorities catch up to him and tackle (ie grapple) him to keep him from escaping. Since the authorities "attacked" the Thief, he is now within his rights to defend himself, knock out the authorities and then CdG them?

Who brought about the attack deliberately? Who induced the attack? Who initiatied the attack? Not the Thief, that was farthest from his mind. He wanted to run away. He got caught by the guards who "provoked" the attack (last time I checked, grapple was an attack. Maybe this will change in 3.5?). They lawfully provoked it, but that was the original posters quote. I beleive it was (w/o going backwards) that anyone who provokes an attack with you is subject to die. I'd say he needs to clean up that definition more than I do.

Killing a person who commits evil is not an evil act. There doesn't need to be any other punishment, so long as it fits the crime. In ancient times, your hand might be cut off if you were caught stealing. Was there any other way? Perhaps, but that doesn't make that punishment evil.

Ugh. If there is other recourse or other ways to deal with him, then killing him is an evil act. If there isn't, than it isn't.

As an aside (just feel the need to clarify something)... When I am in combat, and get attacked by multiple "things". My characters mantra isn't, "I'm gonna kill you." It's more like, "I'm going to take you out of commission, using lethal force if necessary, until you no longer pose a threat. If I find you bleeding to death, I will do my best to stabilize/heal you once I am no longer threatened. Unfortunately, if you should you die, that is the risk YOU took when trying to kill me."

Are we talking about D&D or your campaign? Some things in fantasy are pure evil.

I like a little flavor in my DnD games. Not the same old predictablity. My DM favors this too. 95% of the time if something is "usually or always evil" then it is. But that other 5% of the time is what keeps me from hacking up every evil thing that crosses my path.

Here are two instances that happened in our game (WAY early on). I play a Paladin in this particular campaign =/

We were in a very shady town. It was pretty much lawless for outsiders (our party), but the people of the town could enjoy some protection from the law. For example, we were attacked by a press gang. We defeated them and the authorities didn't do much in the way of help us, they kind of looked the other way because they didn't want to deal with it. While there was an "understanding" that townsfolk would not be pressed by these gangs. Just to give you an example of this town. Anyway...

1) We walk into a bar. There is an assortment of people there. I scan with Detect Evil, and sure enough the three goblins sitting at a table doing nothing more than enjoying an ale come up as Evil. I proceed to tell them to leave this bar while I am here or "else". They took this as a threat (and rightfully so) and attacked me. I attacked back, and we ended up killing them. I should mention that some of our own party members refused to fight because they felt I was in the wrong. Which I was (I was low level and I was trying to play up the fact that I was new to the Paladin thing so I purposely made some mistakes). I believe now my actions were evil, but my DM let me go lightly. Since this was my first "offense" it takes more than one evil action to make someone evil. And at that time I beleived I was doing the right thing. I learned the error of my ways and moved on.

2) We came upon an Evil (I detected him) Orc who was captain of a ship we were to investigate. His crew attacked us, and we ended up killing them. The captain however was not there, he was at the tavern. So we went there and met him (this is where I detected him actually). Now, instead of just killing him, "because he was evil" and because I learned from a past mistake, we talked to him. We actually needed his help as it turned out, but we just killed his crew so we had to find a new crew for him. Which we did (counting ourselves). Now I was leary of this, as I would be associating with an Evil person BUT my intentions were to show him the error of his ways. And ya know what? It worked. We no longer had to have a party member stay on the ship fearing he would sail away while we explored an island. Eventually, through kindness, he began to turn Neutral. He was still motivated by money, but we could trust him. I Detected Evil on him later, and he didn't show up as Evil any longer. So in not killing him, we made a valuable ally which we could (and did) trust. We could have killed him at the tavern and just took his boat, but it turned out for the better. These are the kind of unpredictable things I like in my games, rather than "He's evil, kill him". To each his own I guess.

You don't understand, do you? If you kill them to prevent them being a threat again in the battle, it is not evil, it is pure utility. Only wanton killing can be called evil. If the other side isn't healing the downed allies, then it is wanton killing.

They aren't a threat though, unless you can attack while unconcious... I know, you're saying if an ally heals them back up. Well, let me ask you this... How many enemy NPC healers do you know that gave a Ranged Heal spell (Reach Spell)? Not very many. So that means they need to touch their ally to heal them. If I am close enough to CdG an enemy, I will be close enough to attack the healer. At the very least, I'll be ready to smack the re-concious foe once he does get healed.

If the enemy wants to heal him so bad, he must want him alive, right? Point your sword at the fallen enemies his neck. "Surrender or this man dies. Come closer, and this man dies. Drop your weapons, spell components, focus items, etc. or this man dies." DM, I ready an action to... whatever. And yes, you are Bluffing. If they call your bluff, they still need to get closer to heal him.

Why aren't you thinking of other alternatives other than CdG? It really isn't that hard.

If you see them commit evil worth being killed over, killing them is not evil. If you know they are commpeled, or susspect they might be, it would be wrong to kill them. If they are common bandits, it is not the same thing. I agree that if you off every person who attacks you, you will run evil eventually.

Depends on the evil. If you are protecting the innocents they are slaightering before your eyes, then maybe not. I say maybe because, what if you engage him in combat and he surrenders? Do you kill an unarmed and surrendering man? He killed people just 30 seconds ago, but he is unarmed and surrendered. What to do?

Evil is disrespect for life. You can kill when you have some respect for life. I never claimed killing was good. Only that it could very easily be a non-evil act. Please pay attention to that.

I agree with this. I do think (and this may be where we differ) that if there are other alternatives other than killing an opponent or CdG them, a Good person should and WOULD attempt those alternatives first.

 

[RigaMortus]

A few misc things...

1) I really like this discussion. Let's try and keep it civil. I may be at fault there, but I'm not the only one. Ok, no pointing fingers.... Let's just keep it civil from now on =)

2) I probably won't be able to read or reply to this for a day or so, so don't think I'm ignoring anyones replies back to me.

3) Out of curiousity, what is everyone's age here? The reason I ask is this. When I was in high school (actually from ages 10 through 17) I used to play the "It's evil, kill it. Kill first, ask questions later." way as I interpret many of you are. (No offense, just my way of defining your play style with regards to alignment). I stopped playing DnD until 3E came out, I guess I was 25 then? I am 27 now. So from the ages of 25 - 27 I developed my current philosophy about how to deal with "evil" beings (with the influence of my current group). So I am just curious what everyone elses age is right now, if you don't mind me asking...

 

[LokiDR]

RigaMortus, I see now what your problem with the situation is: you are an absolutist. You believe that every action with any moral implication is good or evil. That is not the case. Please learn this.

A "punisher" character may not be good, but that doesn't make them evil.

You keep mentioning "alternatives". That would be the Good thing to do. Killing the innocent is an evil thing to do. Killing the evil doers any way you can is neutral at worst.

I think your "Heroic" campaign has skewed your vision. Killing outside of combat is never heroic. That doesn't make it evil.

Yes, it can... a lot of the time even. A CdG? Hardly ever (not never, just hardly ever).

To punish a criminal is not evil.

I will not call it heroic. That is not what an alignment of non-evil means though. To AVOID being EVIL, I only need to be clear that I am not acting in self interest. Killing a downed foe as punishment for crimes satisfies that critia.

To punish a criminal is not evil.

You have been playing paladin's too much.